There are two things wrong with this model. First, no matter how many Tracking Protection Lists consumers install in their copies of IE9, there’s no way to guarantee that the user isn’t being tracked, because the tracking services can always spin up a new website with a new domain name. More important, the new feature won’t stop the websites you access from tracking you. And since you won’t block the websites you are using, you won’t block the tracking.
As it turns out, the idea of Congress passing a law isn’t so far-fetched. The recent Congressional hearing was announced a day after the Federal Trade Commission released a 122-page preliminary staff report, “Protecting Consumer Privacy in an Era of Rapid Change,” which endorsed the creation of a national “do not track” mechanism.
“Do not track” is at the beginning of the policy cycle. Interest groups are still trying to figure out how to explain tracking, figure out where they stand, and then phrase their arguments. But surprisingly, at the hearing, there was near unanimous agreement among the speakers on one point: consumers should have the right to chose whether or not they are tracked.
Alas, the rhetoric of “consumer choice” may ultimately render anti-tracking technology or regulation meaningless. That’s because the companies that are among the best at tracking consumers, such as Google and Facebook, generally have already extracted their users’ consent to be tracked as a precondition to using their services.
If simple solutions to Internet tracking won’t work, what do we need instead? First, we need true transparency by Internet advertisers and technology providers—we shouldn’t have to rely on academics and journalists to figure out what these companies are up to. Second, we need an intent-based system of regulations that, rather than focusing on tracking or blocking techniques, describes what kind of data may be collected, who is allowed access to the data, and how it may be used.
Internet users should also have the legal right to see what information has been collected about them online and the right to have that information selectively deleted. (Being able to delete your Google tracking profile is not really an option if you also have to delete all of your e-mail and find another place to house your calendar.) Simply put, we need to have the Code of Fair Information Practice extended to the Internet—something that business interests have successfully blocked until now.
Current proposals to limit tracking are unlikely to address the core problem—the use of collected information in undisclosed ways. Indeed, the proposals will do little more than put other companies at a disadvantage relative to advertising companies like Google and Facebook, which attract eyeballs with compelling Web-based social networking, messaging, and personal-information-management applications. Thus “do not track,” unless it’s done correctly, will simply accelerate the centralization and monopolization that’s already under way on the Internet.